C4 2018 Logo

Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate Change. Show all posts

Friday, 25 November 2016

Resilience is Everyone’s Responsibility

(Veronica Scotti, President & CEO, Swiss Re Canada)

The insurance industry is fully capable of meeting its obligations in the wake of the Fort McMurray fire, yet the assets lost are a sobering reminder of the ferocity of nature’s perils and our vulnerability. 

Replaying the scenes of the devastation in my mind, I’ve been thinking about how resilient we really are – both physically and financially. Are Canada and its citizens equal to the challenge of extreme events like Fort McMurray? What about other events such as earthquake and flood? I think there's work that can and should be done. 

My colleague, Christoph Oehy, former Head Treaty Underwriting, and I share a passion of wanting to raise the odds of Canada's preparedness for when the next flood strikes. Over the past year, we've discussed, at length, what we think is needed for that to happen, and how we can help. Those conversations are now compiled in a report Christoph co-authored with our flood peril specialist, Caspar Honneger. The road to flood resilience in Canada explores the consequences of a 200-year event and recommends steps to close the protection gap – the difference between economic and insured losses. 

Our research estimates that Canada’s property protection gap is CAD$2.9 billion – the 11th highest in the world. It’s a sad fact that few homeowners have flood insurance. One major event could result in damages that far outstrip the level of insurance available in the market. We only need to look back a couple of years for a vivid illustration of this problem. In 2013, insurance only covered about one-third of the economic losses from the southern Alberta floods and CAD$1 billion of the nearly CAD$1.5 billion in total losses from the Toronto flood.

So what’s causing this protection gap? There are many reasons, but let’s look at two very important factors. First, there’s a general misunderstanding (or assumption) that the government will step in and pay for extensive repairs and replacement, which leads to complacency about the need for insurance. Second, insurers have been hesitant to take on flood risk due in part to inadequate modelling skills and no clear actions to continuously mitigate exposures, which homeowners and municipalities are in charge of.


Ignorance and maintaining the status quo are no defense against the very real threat of a 200-year flood. Consider the following river flood projections based on a model developed by our catastrophe peril experts:

- A 200-year flood in Ontario is likely to be triggered by heavy precipitation and inadequate urban drainage, resulting in total losses approaching CAD$5.3 billion -- CAD$4 billion of that is uninsured at the moment.

- A 200-year flood in Alberta could destroy CAD$3.6 billion in property -- CAD$2.6 billion of that uninsured -- caused by excessive snowmelt on the Bow and Elbow Rivers which converge at Calgary.

- In British Columbia, development along the Fraser River would exacerbate already tenuous flood conditions in the event of a heavy snowmelt, triggering CAD$4.6 billion in losses of which CAD$2.8 billion isn't covered by insurance.

Those are just a few examples. As you can see, the culprit varies depending on geography, topography, climate, population, development and local infrastructure. 

Canada's the only G7 country today that leaves homeowners largely unprotected from the financial losses caused by floods, and still relies on post-event measures, which are sincere but ineffective and certainly unsustainable. So what will it take to change the multi-party conversation on the flood file and close the flood protection gap through planned actions? You’ll find our recommendations in the report, but here’s the general idea: It will take partnership between the public and private sectors to satisfactorily address the need for physical resilience, social resilience and economic resilience (all three are important). Insurance can lead the way to higher economic resilience through improved modelling, product innovation and application of behavioural economics toward better understanding consumer attitudes and motivations when it comes to the perceived value of insurance. A clear appreciation for the value of insurance is directly linked to 1) a well-informed choice when selecting coverage and 2) in assuming responsibility through very simple and inexpensive risk mitigation measures that can save thousands of dollars in losses as well as emotional distress. 

I encourage you to read this report – while it's scientifically sound it's also an easy read. And you can always reach out to us through this blog if you have questions or tips on how to make the dialogue richer and the actions more compelling. I'm convinced we can make a difference if we all take responsibility.

And if you’re having some of these same discussions with colleagues, please let us know. That's how it all started for Christoph and myself a year ago in our Toronto office.


This article was originally posted on Swiss Re's Open Minds Platform.

Swiss Re Canada is a proud sponsor of CatIQ's Canadian Catastrophe Conference (C4 2017) that is taking place February 1-3 at the Allstream Centre located in Toronto. Balz Grollimud, Head Treaty of Underwriting at Swiss Re will be speaking during the Geomagnetic Storms - The Next Black Swan session at the conference.

Friday, 11 November 2016

Canada’s Near Failing Grade in Flood Preparedness

By Joanne Kennell, Meteorologist at CatIQ


It may surprise you to learn that nearly all 10 Canadian provinces and Yukon have received a near failing grade when it comes to flood preparedness. According to a new report titled “Climate Change and the Preparedness of Canadian Provinces and Yukon to Limit Potential Flood Damage” by the University of Waterloo and sponsored by the Intact Centre of Climate Adaptation, these grades are a symptom of significant change being needed across the country. And these changes need to happen quickly in order for Canada to be prepared to address the climate-related risks of increasing severe weather events, including catastrophic floods.


In Canada, the majority of insured catastrophic losses are from water-related damage, and up until the Fort McMurray Fire (2016-05-Cat-0070) in Alberta this past May, the 2013 Southern Alberta Flood (2013-06-Cat-0049) was the costliest insured natural disaster with a CatIQ insured loss estimate of over $1.5 billion. According to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2016, the federal government has spent more on recovering from catastrophic natural disasters over the last 6 years than in the previous 39 years combined. Clearly, climate change risks could pose a significant threat to not only Canada, but to the global financial system as both storm intensity and frequency continue to rise.

Figure 1: Catastrophic Insured Losses from Natural Disasters in Canada (1983 to 2016)

So what does the report mean by flood preparedness? Preparedness is defined as “the capacities and knowledge developed by governments, professional response organizations, communities and individuals to anticipate and respond effectively to the impact of likely, imminent or current hazard events or conditions”, the report quotes from The United Nations Secretariat of theInternational Strategy for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR), 2016. To survey the flood preparedness of Canada’s provinces and Yukon (Northwest Territories and Nunavut were not covered in the report), 103 government representatives across 91 provincial and territorial ministries, departments and agencies were polled on the preparedness to limit flood damage relative to current (2016) and future (2030) major rainfall events based on 12 categories (Feltmate, 2016):

1.       Floodplain Mapping
2.       Land-use Planning
3.       Drainage System Maintenance
4.       Sustainable Flooding Management
5.       Home Adaptation Audit
6.       Commercial Property Adaptation Audit
7.       Transportation Systems
8.       Electricity Supply
9.       Drinking Water Systems
10.   Waste Water Systems
11.   Public Health and Safety
12.   Emergency Preparedness and Response

Overall, the Canadian provinces and Yukon scored very well in maintaining Public Health and Safety and Emergency Preparedness and Response. However, many provinces fell short in the remaining 10 categories. For example, most survey participants agreed that current land-use planning practices do not “sufficiently restrict development in flood-prone areas” and that “municipal councils have significant power to override their own land-use restriction bylaws to approve new developments, even if the developments are in recognized flood-prone areas”. Additionally, four provinces are currently not involved in the development of a Home Adaptation Audit program, which is a program that helps homeowners assess their vulnerability and minimize their risk to flooding. Similarly, nine provinces indicated that they have not developed a Commercial Property Adaptation Audit program, which is comparable to the Home Adaptation Audit, but for businesses.

By now you must be itching to know how Canada, as well as individual provinces and territories, scored. Using a scale from A (strong flood preparedness) to E (weak flood preparedness); Canada received an overall grade of C-. This is not great, and “suggests that there is a considerable margin for Canada to better prepare for, and potentially mitigate, future flood risk” states the report. Ontario leads the pack with a score of B-, and the provinces with the lowest score include British Columbia and Prince Edward Island, which both received a D.

        Figure 2: The Canadian Average Flood Preparedness Score Across all Canadian Provinces and Yukon

However, the survey participants did recommend several measures that provinces and territories should take in order to limit future flooding risks:

1.       Create a position of Chief Adaptation Officer (CAO) whose duty is to identify    
  areas of both strength and weakness to flood preparedness and develop methods  
  to mitigate the risks
2.       CAOs would be in charge of ensuring that flood risk preparedness is deployed
3.       Provinces and territories should issue, on a multi-year cycle, audited public  
  reports on the state of flood preparedness and future challenges that may develop
4.       Provinces and territories should mandate that new development in flood-prone
  areas be restricted, and that municipalities should not be able to overturn bylaws
  set by provinces and territories
5.       Where practical, infrastructure should be re-built to better handle our changing
  climate

Although concerns related to flooding have been minimal in recent decades, the report concludes that “the risks of the past are not the risks of the present, and certainly not the risks of the future”, and failure to improve the preparedness of provinces and territories could result in unceasing economic losses, threatening Canada’s status as a safe country in which to invest and do business.

References

Feltmate, Blair. (2016). Climate Change and the Preparedness of Canadian Provinces and
         Yukon to Limit Potential Flood Damage. University of Waterloo. URL:
         http://www.intactcentreclimateadaptation.ca/wpcontent/uploads/2016/10/Intact-
         Centre-Climate-Change-and-the-Preparedness-of-Canadian-Provinces-and-Yukon-
         Oct-2016.pdf

Office of the Auditor General Canada (2016). 2016. Spring Reports of the Commissioner of
         the Environment and Sustainable Development: Report 2 – Mitigating the Impacts of
         Severe Weather. URL: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_
cesd
         _201605_02_e_41381.html#hd4a

The United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UN/OCHA), Policy and
         Development Branch and United Nations Secretariat of the International Strategy
         for Disaster Reduction (UN/ISDR). (2008). Disaster Preparedness for Effective
         Response: Guidance and Indicator Package for Implementing Priority Five of the
         Hyogo Framework. Geneva, Switzerland: UN/ISDR and UN/OCHA. URL:
         http://www.unisdr.org/files/2909_Disasterpreparednessforeffectiveresponse.pdf

Tuesday, 24 November 2015

National Strategy for Disaster Resilience- Australia

Jim Abraham (Halifax, NS)

I just spent a three-week vacation in Australia and New Zealand.  Much of that time was visiting friends and colleagues from the Bureau of Meteorology and the New Zealand MetService, discussing the challenges and opportunities of ensuring the work that we do is relevant to the needs of society.

Extreme weather events are quite frequent in Australia; a topic frequented by my weather colleagues down there. During our visit, there were several severe weather outbreaks, accompanied by tornadoes and flash floods.  An anomalously warm spell in early October had resulted in earlier than normal moisture deficits, and the bushfire season was already underway. 

No surprise, that Australia to be extremely vulnerable to climate change and associated extreme weather events.  For example:
  •          A substantial proportion of the population resides in relatively few urban areas.  Cities like Melbourne and Sydney continue to grow rapidly
  •          Much of this same urban population is located relatively near the coast
  •          A substantial amount of their water resources and associated agricultural lands are within one large river basin (Murray-Darling)
During my conversations, I was particularly interested in any national coordination initiatives underway to help reduce these vulnerabilities.  Certainly the Bureau of Meteorology is examining a strategy that will allow it to address these challenges in a cost-effective way.  However, I was very interested in the fact that the Australian and New Zealand governments are cooperating on a National Strategy for Disaster Resilience: 



I was particularly pleased that this recognizes that all sectors of society need to work together, including business, all levels of government, NGO’s, academia and individuals.  The identified priority areas of action are areas that I feel are essential for us in Canada, especially establishment of partnerships and community engagement.  Furthermore, in Australia-New Zealand, there is a recognition that the importance of infrastructure investments.  Certainly, given our recently elected government’s priority on infrastructure, it would be nice to see appropriate investment that contributes to sustainability and resilience.  A recent report on the progress in implementing the strategy includes a number of case studies:  http://www.ag.gov.au/EmergencyManagement/About-us-emergency-management/Documents/NSDR-Progress-to-date.PDF 

I’ll be keeping in touch with folks to benefit from their learning and progress. I would like to see Canada take advantage of the efforts undertaken by our colleagues “Down-Under”, and develop our own Canadian National Disaster Resiliency Strategy.

This blog post has been written by Jim Abraham, Director, Canadian Climate Forum & former Director General of Weather Environmental Monitoring, Meteorological Service of Canada, Environment Canada. Jim is on CatIQ's Canadian Catastrophe Conference's 2016 Advisory Committee and will be speaking at two sessions during the conference.